Methods and apparatus for user interface optimization

ABSTRACT

The invention provides in one aspect a method that includes identifying one or more rules for execution by a rules engine in order to generate a user interface. The method further includes executing, on a digital data processing system that comprises one or more digital data processors, a step of determining whether one or more aspects of the user interface generated as a result of execution of at least one of those rules is in conformity with one or more requirements. The system responds to a negative such determination, according to the method, by identifying modifications to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, modifying one or more of those rules to generate a conforming user interface from (e.g., based directly or indirectly on) those one or more rules, and/or generating a conforming user interface from those one or more rules. The method further calls for storing to and/or generating as an output from the digital data processing system a result those step(s).

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.13/031,109, filed Feb. 18, 2011, entitled “Methods and Apparatus forUser Interface Optimization” which is a continuation in part of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 12/174,624, filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled“Methods and Apparatus for Implementing Multilingual SoftwareApplications,” which claims the benefit of priority of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 61/063,269, filed Jan. 31, 2008, entitled “DigitalData Processing Methods and Apparatus for Business Process Management.”This application is also a continuation in part of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 12/035,682, filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “UserInterface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing,” which is acontinuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/396,415,filed Mar. 30, 2006, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus forRules Processing.” The teachings of all of the forgoing are incorporatedherein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Background

The invention relates to digital data processing and, more particularly,for example, to more to the optimization of user interfaces generated bydigital data processing systems.

Computer systems that facilitate business operations based oninformation specific to an industry or enterprise are well known in theart. These typically rely on rules identifying situations that areexpected to arise during enterprise operation and the applicableresponses. Such systems have been used in a range of applications, fromhealth care to automotive repair. The rules on which they rely come fromexperts in the field, from the collective experience of workers on the“front line,” or a combination of these and other sources.

Though many computer systems of this sort incorporateapplication-specific knowledge directly into source code (using, forexample, a sequence of “if . . . then . . . else” statements, or thelike), more complex systems store that knowledge separately from theprograms that access it. Some use “rules bases” that storeapplication-specific information in tables, database records, databaseobjects, and so forth. An example of a system of this type is disclosedin commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,250, entitled “Rules Bases andMethods of Access Thereof,” the teachings of which are incorporatedherein by reference.

These and other rules-based business process management (BPM)applications are commonly used in enterprise computing, for example,where they facilitate a range of business operations, from marketing tomanufacturing to distribution to technical support. By way of example, aBPM application can implement data-processing workflows to support thehandling of customer service requests received by retail and bankingenterprises. By way of further example, BPM applications can be used inhealth care and insurance enterprises to support the automated routingand resolution of claims.

With increasing frequency, these applications are implemented witharchitectures that permit their use over the Internet, wide areanetworks, local area networks, and the like. A common such architectureprovides a rules engine that executes on a server, e.g., co-located withthe rules base at enterprise headquarters, and that processes requestsentered by support personnel via web browsers executing on remotelydisposed client devices (e.g., personal computers and personal digitalassistants).

Other software applications are evolving similarly. Those thattraditionally ran solely on the “desktop,” are now increasingly beingexecuted over the Internet or other networks. Word processing is oneexample. Though core functions are still supported by software residenton each user's computer, higher-end functionality may be delivered ondemand from an enterprise or other server.

Unfortunately, the architectural evolution of BPM and other applicationshas not been accompanied by commensurate changes in their userinterfaces. Customers must increasingly rely on those interfaces foreverything from opening inquiries, to making purchases and entering intoother transactions, to obtaining customer assistance. Enterpriseemployees and managers must likewise increasingly rely on them foreverything from account inquires, to report generation, to customer andaccount support. Though the quantity of information pouring into and outof these user interfaces is on the rise, their efficiency and ease ofuse is not. An object of this invention is to correct that.

More generally, an object of the invention is to provide improvedsystems and methods for digital data processing.

A more particular object is to provide improved user interface systemsand methods.

A yet more particular object is to provide such improved user interfacesystems and methods for use with rules engines.

A still yet more particular object is to provide such improved userinterface systems and methods for use in business process management(BPM) applications.

A yet still further object is to provide such improved user interfacesystems and methods as are optimized for user interaction.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The foregoing are among the objects attained by the invention, whichprovides in some aspects methods and systems for user interfaceoptimization. In one such aspect, the invention provides such a methodthat includes identifying one or more rules for execution by a rulesengine in order to generate a user interface. The method furtherincludes executing, on a digital data processing system that comprisesone or more digital data processors, a step of determining whether oneor more aspects of the user interface generated as a result of executionof at least one of those rules is in conformity with one or morerequirements. The system responds to a negative such determination bygenerating a notification indicative thereof, identifying modificationsto generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules,modifying one or more of those rules to generate a conforming userinterface, and/or generating a conforming user interface from (e.g.,based directly or indirectly on) those one or more rules. The methodfurther calls for storing to and/or generating as an output from thedigital data processing system a result those step(s).

Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein one or more of the rules comprises any of metadata andone or more programming language statements.

Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein aspects of the user interface in regard to which thedetermination of conformity is made pertain to a language syntax of theuser interface, including any of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation,and style; accessibility of the user interface by disabled users;amenability of the user interface to localization/globalization; theneed for localizing/globalizing the user interface; security; and/orlayout.

Thus, by way of non-limiting example, methods according to relatedaspects of the invention can make a determination of whether the userinterface provides tooltips in conformity with specified accessibilityrequirements. And, by way of further non-limiting example, such methodscan make a determination of whether the user interface obfuscates one ormore fields (e.g., input and/or display fields) in accord with specifiedsecurity requirements.

By way of still further example, methods according to related aspects ofthe invention can make a determination of whether the user interfacemeets specified layout requirements in regard to priority of fields,color contrast, whitespace, alignment, field and/or element labels,redundancy, progress indicators, usability, unused area and/or displayresolution.

Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein one or more of the requirements from which the conformitydetermination is made are defined by one or more further rules (e.g.,from a rules base) and/or another user interface generated thereby, oneor more transactional data (e.g., from one or more enterprise databases)relating to the user interface or otherwise, a context in which the userinterface is any of transmitted, displayed and/or viewed by the user, acollection (e.g., database, rules base or otherwise) defining any ofgrammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, style of the user interface.

Still further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., asdescribed above, wherein one or more of the user requirements aredefined in accord with transactional data relating to a field associatedwith the user interface. According to such aspects, for example, theconforming user interface can include a field that has a modifieddisplay characteristic vis-a-vis a non-conforming user interface whichwould otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination ofnon-conformance is made.

Related aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein the modified display characteristic is based on arequirement defined in accord with transactional data relating tocorrelation between transactional data associated with that field andtransactional data associated with another field. The modified displaycharacteristic can be, for example, position, size, color and/or otherattribute.

Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein a field in a conforming user interface includes a fieldthat is repositioned vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface whichwould otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination ofnon-conformance is made. According to related aspects of the invention,a location of that repositioned field is based on a location of anotherfield in the user interface. Alternatively, or in addition, according torelated aspects of the invention, that location can be based on apreferred position for the repositioned field, e.g., as defined in oneor more other rules and/or a context in which the user interface is anyof transmitted, displayed and/or viewed by a user—all by way of example.

Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as describedabove, wherein a field of a conforming user interface is any of added toand removed from the user interface vis-a-vis the non-conforming userinterface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which thedetermination of non-conformance is made.

Yet still further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., asdescribed above, wherein a conforming user interface includes a fieldthat that has a modified display characteristic vis-a-vis thenon-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from therule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.

Other related aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., asdescribed above, wherein the requirement pertains to an alignmentcharacteristic and wherein the conforming user interface includes analtered alignment characteristic vis-a-vis the non-conforming userinterface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which thedetermination of non-conformance is made.

Still other related aspects provide methods, e.g., as described above,wherein the requirement pertains to a security trait and wherein theconforming user interface includes a feature that obfuscates at leastone display or input field vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interfacewhich would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which thedetermination of non-conformance is made.

Likewise, for example, wherein the requirement pertains to the displayof “breadcrumbs,” tabs or other navigational indicators of userinterfaces, the conforming user interface can include a featurereflecting such indicators vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interfacewhich would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which thedetermination of non-conformance is made.

These and other aspects of the invention are evident in the drawings andin the description that follows.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A more complete understanding of the invention may be attained byreference to the drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 depicts a digital data processing system according to theinvention;

FIG. 2 depicts operation of a markup language generator component of arules engine in the system of FIG. 1; and

FIG. 3 depicts operation of a rule and/or markup language analyzercomponent in the system of FIG. 1.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED EMBODIMENT

Architecture

FIG. 1 depicts a digital data processing system 10 of the type in whichthe invention may be practiced. This includes a server digital dataprocessor 12 that is coupled to client digital data processors 14, 16and 18 via the Internet, a wide area network (WAN), metropolitan areanetwork (MAN), local area network (LAN), telephone networks and/or acombination of these and other networks (wired, wireless, public,private or otherwise)-all indicated here by the network element 20.

The illustrated client digital data processors 14, 16, and 18 areconventional desktop computers, workstations, minicomputers, laptopcomputers, tablet computers, PDAs or other digital data processingapparatus of the type that are commercially available in the marketplaceand that are suitable for operation in the illustrated system asdescribed herein, all as adapted in accord with the teachings hereof.Here, those digital data processors are of the type and configurationused in a corporate or enterprise environment; however, the inventionmay be practiced in any variety of other computing environments,networked or otherwise.

The digital data processors 14, 16, 18 comprises central processing,memory, storage and input/output units and other constituent components(not shown) of the type conventional in the art that are configured toform application 14 a, 16 a, 18 a respectively, which in the illustratedembodiment comprise software suitable for (i) displaying user interfacesgenerated by server 12 and transmitted to the respective processors 14,16, 18 via network 20 and, preferably, for also (ii) generating requestsfor those interfaces and transmitting them to server 12, again, vianetwork 20.

In the illustrated embodiment, those applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 acomprise web browsers of the type commercially available in themarketplace and operative on the respective devices for, by way ofexample, retrieving web pages or other markup language streams,presenting those pages and/or streams (visually, aurally, or otherwise),executing scripts, controls and other code on those pages/streams,accepting user input with respect to those pages/streams (e.g., forpurposes of completing input fields), issuing HTTP requests with respectto those pages/streams or otherwise (e.g., for submitting to a serverinformation from the completed input fields), and so forth. The webpages or other markup language can be in HTML or other conventionalforms, including embedded XML, scripts, controls, and so forth—again,per convention in the art. In other embodiments, applications 14 a, 16a, 18 a may perform fewer of these functions and may perform otherfunctions, as well or instead.

Thus, by way of non-limiting example, one or more of applications 14 a,16 a, 18 a may comprise embedded rules engines, e.g., for executingrules transmitted respectively to them by server 12 (e.g., as part ofthe web pages, markup streams) or otherwise. While in some embodiments,such rules engines are architected and operated similarly to rulesengine 22 of server 12, discussed below, in other embodiments theyincorporate a subset of the functionality of engine 22, e.g., suited tothe processing resources and/or demands of the digital data processors14, 16, 18 upon which they operate.

While the forgoing functions attributed to applications 14 a, 16 a, 18a, are described, here, in the context of web pages, it will beappreciated that in other embodiments, one or more of the foregoingfunctions may be performed on the respective devices 14, 16, 18 otherthan by “web browser” software.

The central processing, memory, storage and input/output units of clientdigital data processors 14, 16, 18 may be configured to form and/or maybe supplemented by other elements of the type known in the art desirableor necessary to support applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 a, respectively, inaccord with the teachings hereof, as well as to support other operationsof the digital data processor 12. These can include, by way ofnon-limiting example, peripheral devices (such as keyboards andmonitors), operating systems, database management systems, and networkinterface cards and software, e.g., for supporting communications withserver digital data processor 12 and other devices over network 20.

Although digital data processors 14, 16, 18 are depicted and describedin like manner here, it will be appreciated that this is for sake ofgenerality and convenience: in other embodiments, these devices maydiffer in architecture and operation from that shown and described hereand/or from each other, all consistent with the teachings hereof.Moreover, it will be appreciated that although only three closelypositioned client devices 14, 16, 18 are shown, other embodiments mayhave greater or fewer numbers of these devices disposed near and/or farfrom one another, collocated behind one or more common firewalls orotherwise.

Like client digital data processors 14, 16, 18, the server digital dataprocessor 12 is a digital data processing apparatus of the typecommercially available in the marketplace suitable for operation in theillustrated system as described herein, as adapted in accord with theteachings hereof. Though the server 12 is typically implemented in aserver-class computer, such as a minicomputer, it may also beimplemented in a desktop computer, workstation, laptop computer, tabletcomputer, PDA or other suitable apparatus (again, as adapted in accordwith the teachings hereof).

Server digital data processor 12, too, comprises central processing,memory, storage and input/output units and other constituent components(not shown) of the type conventional in the art that are configured inaccord with the teachings hereof to form rules engine 22, rules base 24,transaction database 26, language database 28 and context registry 30,one or more of which may be absent in various embodiments of theinvention.

Although only a single server digital data processor 12 is depicted anddescribed here, it will be appreciated that this other embodiments mayhave greater or fewer numbers of these devices disposed near and/or farfrom one another, collocated behind one or more common firewalls orotherwise. Those other servers may differ in architecture and operationfrom that shown and described here and/or from each other, allconsistent with the teachings hereof. Still further, although server 12of the illustrated embodiment is depicted as being remotely disposedfrom the client digital data processors 14, 16 and 18, in otherembodiments, one or more of the client devices may be disposed invicinity of the server and, indeed, may be co-housed with it.

Rules base 24 comprises a conventional rules bases of the type known inthe art (albeit configured in accord with the teachings hereof) forstoring digitally encoded rules 25 and other application-relatedinformation in tables, database records, database objects, and so forth.Such stored rules 25 are likewise formatted and stored in theconventional manner known in the art (albeit configured in accord withthe teachings hereof). Here, rules base 24 is configured and containsrules 25 for use in business process management applications, though inother embodiments it may be configured and used for other applications.A preferred such rules base is of the type described in theaforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,250,entitled “Rules Bases and Methods of Access Thereof” and U.S. Pat. No.7,640,222, entitled “Rules Base Systems and Methods with CircumstanceTranslation,” though, a rules base that is architected and/or operateddifferently may be used as well.

Some embodiments may utilize multiple rules bases, e.g., anenterprise-wide rules base 24 on the server 12 and domain-specific rulesbases on one or more of client devices 14, 16, 18, all by way ofexample. To the extent that multiple rules bases are provided in anygiven embodiment, they may be of like architecture and operation as oneanother; though, they be disparate in these regards, as well.Utilization of multiple rules bases may be accomplished in the mannerdescribed in copending, commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser.No. 13/031,097, Attorney Docket No. 103348-25, entitled “Systems andMethods for Distributed Rules Processing,” filed this same day herewith,the teachings of which are incorporated heron by reference.

Transactional data base 26 comprises a conventional data base of thetype known in the art (albeit configured in accord with the teachingshereof) for storing corporate, personal, governmental or other data thatmay be any of generated, stored, retrieved and otherwise processed(hereinafter, collectively referred to as “processed”) by rules in rulesbase 24 and/or rules stored/executed elsewhere. The data may offinancial data, customer records, personal data, run-time data relatedto an application, or other type of data and it may be stored in tables,database records, database objects, and so forth.

As above, some embodiments may utilize multiple transactional databasebases, e.g., an enterprise-wide data base 26 on the server 12 andbranch-office specific data bases on the client devices 14, 16, 18, allby way of example. To the extent that multiple transactional data basesare provided in any given embodiment, they may be of like architectureand operation as one another; though, they be disparate in theseregards, as well. Utilization of multiple transactional databases may beaccomplished in the manner described in incorporated-by-reference U.S.patent application Ser. No. 13/031,097, Attorney Docket No. 103348-25,entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributed Rules Processing,” filedthis same day herewith.

Language base 28 encodes information regarding the syntax of thelanguage (or languages) in which user interfaces generated by server 12are presented on devices 14, 16, 18 and, more particularly, in theillustrated embodiment, by applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 a. That syntaxcan include one or more of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and/orstyle. The language base 28 may comprise a language database of thevariety commercially available in the marketplace-e.g., in the manner ofspelling and grammar dictionaries provided with conventional wordprocessors (which “dictionaries” often include usage-, punctuation-and/or style-related entries). Alternatively, the language syntaxinformation may be embodied in one or more rules 25 of the rules base24, or otherwise.

Context registry 30 is a store registry that includes informationrelated to the respective contexts or circumstances in which therequested user interfaces (e.g., web pages) are and/or will becommunicated to and executed on the respective client devices 14, 16,18. That context or circumstance can include, by way of non-limitingexample, user “properties” or business attributes (e.g., securitypermissions, disability settings, market segment, behavioral segment,age, locale, and so forth), client device 14, 16, 18 properties (e.g.,processor speed, display size, keyboard capabilities, locale, and soforth), and communication channel properties (e.g., the speed and typeof connection between server 12 and the respective client devices 14,16, 18). That context or circumstance can further include, by way ofnon-limiting example, the language, country and/or other locale settingsand preferences of the user of device to which the web page is to bedisplayed. Still other variations in the possible range of values storedin the context registry 30 are possible.

Illustrated digital data processor 12 also includes rules engine 22 ofthe type conventionally known in the art (albeit configured in accordwith the teachings hereof) for use in processing rules from a rules basein order to process data, e.g., in (and/or for storage to) atransactional database, for example, in connection with events signaledto and/or detected by the engine. In the illustrated embodiment, therules engine is of the type used for business process managementapplications, though in other embodiments it may be of the type used forother applications. Preferred such rules engines are of the typedescribed in the aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. Pat. No.5,826,250, entitled “Rules Bases and Methods of Access Thereof” and U.S.Pat. No. 7,640,222, entitled “Rules Base Systems and Methods withCircumstance Translation” and/or U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/681,269, filed Mar. 2, 2007, entitled “Proactive PerformanceManagement For Multi-User Enterprise Software Systems,” the teachingstoo of which are incorporated by reference herein-all as adapted inaccord with the teachings hereof.

The rules engine 22 may be implemented in a single software program ormodule, or a combination of multiple software modules/programs.Moreover, it may comprise programming instructions, scripts, rules(e.g., rules stored in rules base 24) and/or a combination of thereof.And, even though the rules engine 22 of the illustrated embodiment isdepicted as executing on just server digital data processor 12, in otherembodiments, the engine may execute on or across multiple digital dataprocessors (e.g., 12, 14, 16 and 18). Executing the engine over multipledigital data processors may be accomplished in the manner described inincorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/031,097,Attorney Docket No. 103348-25, entitled “Systems and Methods forDistributed Rules Processing,” filed by one or more of the sameinventors hereof on this same day herewith, the teachings of which areincorporated herein by reference.

Rules

In a preferred embodiment, the rules 25 may comprise meta-informationstructures. These are structures that can include data elements and/ormethod elements. The latter can be procedural or declarative. In theformer regard, for example, such a structure may be procedural insofaras it comprises one or more of a series or ordered steps (e.g., in aworkflow). In the latter regard, such a structure may be declarative,for example, insofar as it sets forth (declares) a relation betweenvariables, values, and so forth (e.g., a loan rate calculation or adecision-making criterion), or it declares the desired computationand/or result without specifying how the computations should beperformed or the result achieved. By way of non-limiting example, thedeclarative portion of a meta-information structure may declare thedesired result of retrieval of a specified value without specifying thedata source for the value or a particular query language (e.g., SQL,CQL, .QL etc.) to be used for such retrieval. In other cases, thedeclarative portion of a meta-information structure may comprisedeclarative programming language statements (e.g., SQL). Still othertypes of declarative meta-information structures are possible.

While some rules may comprise meta-information structures that arewholly procedural and others may comprise those that are whollydeclarative, the illustrated embodiment also contemplates rules 25 thatcomprise both procedural and declarative meta-information structures,i.e., rules that have meta-information structure portions that aredeclarative, as well as meta-information structure portions that areprocedural (e.g., a rule that includes one portion defining one or moresteps of a workflow and another portion that defines a decision-makingcriterion).

Rules of the illustrated embodiment that comprise meta-informationstructures may also reference and/or incorporate other such rules, whichthemselves may, in turn, reference and/or incorporate still other suchrules. As a result, editing such rule may affect one or more rules (ifany) that incorporate it.

Continuing the above example, a meta-information structure-based rulemay include a procedural portion that defines a workflow process, aswell as a reference to another meta-information structure-based rulethat specifies a decision-making criterion for one of the steps in thatworkflow. If the meta-information structure containing thatdecision-making criterion is edited, it may affect the rule thatreferences it and, therefore, affect processing of the workflow thatreferencing rule defines.

In another example, a rule that includes a meta-information structurefor generating a web page may reference another rule with ameta-information structure portion that defines how social securitynumbers (SSNs) are displayed. If the latter rule is edited, e.g., tocause all SSNs to be partially blurred or blocked on display/entry(i.e., “obfuscated”), this may affect the former rule, i.e., causing theweb page generated upon execution of the former rule to display the SSNsin an obfuscated format. Similarly, if several othermeta-information-based rules for generating other web pages referencethe social security-displaying rule, all of those respective web pagesmay be similarly affected.

An advantage of rules that comprise meta-information structures overconventional rules is that they provide users with the flexibility toapply any of code-based and model-driven techniques in the developmentand modification of software applications and/or computing platforms.Particularly, like models in a model-driven environment,meta-information structures comprise data elements that can be used todefine any aspect of a complex system at a higher level of abstractionthan source code written in programming languages such as Java or C++.On the other hand, users may also embed programming language statementsinto meta-information structures if they deem that to be the mostefficient design for the system being developed or modified. Atrun-time, the data elements of the meta-information structures alongwith programming language statements (if any) are automaticallyconverted into executable code by the rules engine.

Thus, in some embodiments, rules may be the primary artifacts that getcreated, stored (e.g., in a rules base 24) or otherwise manipulated todefine and/or modify the overall functionality of rules-basedapplications that may automate and/or manage various types of work indifferent business domains at run-time. By way of non-limiting example,a plurality of rules stored in a rules base (e.g., 24) may be configuredto define all aspects of a software application. Such a softwareapplication may include specialized software that is used within aspecific industry or a business function (e.g., human resources,finance, healthcare, telecommunications etc.), or it may include across-industry application (e.g., a project management application,issue-tracking application etc.), or any other type of softwareapplication. As the software application executes on a digital dataprocessor (e.g. any of 12, 14 and 18), any portion of the pluralityrules that define the application may be retrieved from a rules base(e.g. 24) and processed/executed e.g., using a rules engine 22 inresponse to requests/events signaled to and/or detected by the engine atrun-time.

User Interface Generation

Client devices 14, 16, 18 of the illustrated embodiment execute webbrowsers 14 a, 16 a, 18 a, respectively, that “display” web pages and/orother markup language streams (collectively, “web pages” or,alternatively, “streams,” “markup streams,” “HTML streams,” and soforth, in the discussion that follows, unless otherwise evidenttherefrom) received from server 12 via network(s) 20. These aretypically web pages presented by the server 12 to the respective usersof devices 14, 16, 18, e.g., as part of respective online sessions,although, they can be presented on other occasions and for otherreasons, as well.

The aforementioned web pages include can include conventional elements,such as display text, headers, links, still and moving images, and otherdisplay fields, as well as input fields for entry of data in text,numeric and/or alphanumeric (collectively, “text”) formats, enumerationselection (e.g., dropdown lists, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc.),upload/download file selection, “submit” buttons (e.g., to signify thata page is ready for submission to the server 12), other controls, and soforth. These fields (or elements) may be supplemented and/or replaced byaural presentation fields (e.g., music files) and the like, again, inthe conventional manner known in the art.

In the illustrated embodiment those web pages (or, more generally,markup streams) are generated by the server 12 and transmitted to therespective client devices 14, 16, 18 as a result of execution by rulesengine 22 of rules 25, typically, in response to signaling from theclient digital data processors 14, 16, 18 (e.g., by way of HTTPrequests). However, those pages can also be generated by the server andtransmitted to client devices as a result of execution of rules inresponse to other events, e.g., “asynchronously” generated web pages (orportions thereof) signaling completion of previously requested batchjobs, signaling notifications or other messaging from administrativefunctions in the system 10, other users, and so forth.

In this regard, it will be appreciated that rules base 24 of theillustrated embodiment can comprise multiple types of rules. Some (ifnot all) of the rules may be “user interface” rules that are directed togeneration of web pages (or other mark up streams) via which users ofclient devices 14, 16, 18 communicate with server 12 and vice versa.Execution of these rules, for example, may directly or indirectly leadto one or more of the following, by way of non-limiting example, (i)establishing of online sessions with the respective client devices 14,16, 18 and, more particularly, the users of applications 14 a, 16 a, 18a, executing thereon, (ii) generation of web pages (or, more generally,markup streams) in response to requests from those users (or, as notedabove, in response to other events), and/or (iii) accepting and/orprocessing input from those users, e.g., in response to the web pages,all by way of non-limiting example. Others of the rules in rules base 24may be directed to other features or tasks attendant to business processmanagement, e.g., collaboration between users, rule/work management,optimization, simulation, batch processing of transactions, exchangingdata with other computer systems, report generation, and so forth, allby way of example. Still other rules may execute on the centralprocessing unit or other resources of the server 12 to provide one ormore of the “rules engine” function, itself, again, in the conventionalmanner known in the art. Yet still other rules may define requirementsfor user interfaces generated by the user interface rules, e.g., inregard to language syntax (including, for example, grammar, spelling,usage, punctuation, and style), accessibility disabled users,amenability to and/or necessity of localization/globalization, security,and/or layout.

Thus, for example, in response to a request for a “loan validation” webpage by the web browser 18 a of client digital data processor 18, therules engine 22 retrieves one or more of the rules 25 implicated by thatrequest from the rules base 24 (if it has not already done so). Which ofthose rules 25 is implicated may be determined by the request itself,the context, the state of currently executing rules for that user, andso forth. A markup language generator 22 a contained in rules engine 22then processes those implicated rules, e.g., in view of that context, toselect which input fields, output fields, submit buttons, displayelements, etc., to include in the requested web page and how toconfigure those elements.

Operation of the generator 22 a of the illustrated embodiment is shownin FIG. 2. As shown there, the illustrated generator 22 accepts the I.D.(e.g., name, key etc.) of the implicated rule as an input and determinesif a Java class (for HTML stream generation) already exists in the Javacache (not shown) for that rule. See step 40. If so, processing proceedsto step 50, where that class is executed in order to generate the HTMLstream. If not, processing proceeds to step 42, where the generator 22 aretrieves the XML code defining the identified rule from rules base 24.Processing proceeds to step 44, where the generator 22 a generates Javasource code for the selected rule and any other rule it references. Instep 46, the generator compiles that source code into a class file and,in step 48, it loads that file into the Java cache. In step 50, thegenerator executes that file, thereby, generating the appropriate markuplanguage stream. Of course, it will be appreciated that the operation ofgenerator 22 a described here is merely an example and that otherembodiments may generate markup streams from rules in other ways.Furthermore, even though the illustrated embodiment utilizes an XML datastructure and Java source code, other embodiments may utilize otherprogramming languages and/or utilize other data formats.

In the illustrated embodiment, such contextual selection andconfiguration is embedded in the rules themselves and/or forms part ofthe systematic processing of markup language streams, as discussed inincorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 12/174,624and 12/035,682. As noted above, as used herein “context” refers to thecontext in which the requested web page will be communicated to andexecuted on the client device. That context can include, by way ofnon-limiting example, user “properties” (e.g., security permissions,disabilities, market segment, behavioral segment (or otherbusiness-related attributes), age, locale, and so forth), client device18 properties (e.g., processor speed, display size, keyboardcapabilities, disability settings, and so forth), and communicationchannel properties (e.g., the speed and type of connection betweendevices 12 and 18).

Based on the aforesaid selection and configuration, the engine 22constructs a markup language stream, e.g., in HTML or other conventionalformat or protocol. That stream is transmitted by the server 12, perconvention, to the requesting client digital data processor, e.g., 18,for response by the user, e.g., completion of any input fields on theweb page.

In the illustrated embodiment, the engine 22 constructs and forwards themarkup stream to the browser 18 a of device 18 substantiallyconcurrently with its request for the corresponding web page, i.e.,during the same online session on which that request was made and/orwithin the conventional time periods expected for response to a webpage, though these are not requirements of the invention. The browser 18a of device 18 likewise substantially concurrently executes that streamfor display to the user, e.g., within that same online session and/orwithin the conventional time periods expected for execution of a webpage though, again, this is not a requirement of the invention.

Rules engine 22 responds similarly to requests from the web browser (orother application) 16 a of client digital data processor 16, as well asto those from web browser (or other application 14 a) of digital dataprocessor 14.

In view of the foregoing, and by way of non-limiting example, it will beappreciated that the illustrated embodiment facilitates access to webapplications and generation of web pages by disabled and non-disabledusers alike. For example, the rules engine 22 can generate markuplanguage streams representing the same substantive web page (e.g., aloan validation page) albeit with different user-accessibility featuresin response requests for that same page by client devices with differentdisability settings, e.g., settings reflecting that the respective usersof the client devices have limited hand use, mobility, visionimpairments or, conversely, no impairments at all. An appreciation ofthe operation of the illustrated system in these regards may be attainedby reference to aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 12/035,682, filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “UserInterface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.”

By way of a still further non-limiting example, the rules engine 22 ofthe illustrated embodiment can provide access to web applications andweb pages that are differentiated in accord with models that representuser (customer) behaviors, attributes and goals. Server 12 can therebydeliver otherwise substantively similar web pages that differ to fit theneeds of the particular model to which each user fits. Such contextualselection and configuration of user interface elements allow the server12 to deliver such solutions without the need for coding of multiple webpages, e.g., for each model to which users may belong. An appreciationof the operation of the illustrated system in these regards may beattained by reference to aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S.patent application Ser. No. 11/396,415, filed Mar. 30, 2006, entitled“User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.”

By way of yet a still further non-limiting example, the rules engine 22of the illustrated embodiment can facilitate globalization of userinterfaces. Thus, server 12 can generate markup language streamsrepresenting the same substantive web pages (e.g., loan validation page19), albeit in different languages for delivery to customers indifferent countries. It can effect such globalization (or“localization”) not only with respect to the language, for example, oftext fields, but also formatting of numeric and other fields (e.g., toreflect different currency formats). An appreciation of the operation ofthe illustrated system in these regards may be attained by reference toaforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser.No. 12/174,624, filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled “Methods and Apparatus forImplementing Multilingual Software Applications.”

User Interface Optimization

In addition to utilizing rules to generate web pages making up userinterfaces as described above, the server 12 optimizes those interfacesand, more particularly, those web pages. Referring back to FIG. 1, theserver 12 and, more particularly, the rules engine 22 utilizes ananalyzer 22 b to that end. The analyzer 22 b may be implemented in asingle software program or module, or a combination of multiple softwaremodules/programs. Moreover, it may comprise programming instructions,scripts, rules (e.g., some of the rules 25 stored in rules base 24)and/or a combination of thereof. Even though, the analyzer 22 b executeson server digital data processor 12 as part of the engine 22 in theillustrated embodiment in FIG. 1, in other embodiments, the analyzer 22b may execute separately on one or more digital processors incommunication with server 12 and the other illustrated componentsinstalled thereon.

In the illustrated embodiment, that analyzer 22 b is coupled to thegenerator 22 a and operates in an “online” mode (e.g., at productiontime) to analyze “user interface” rules that are selected for executionfrom rules 25 of rules base 24 and/or to analyze the HTML streamgenerated from those rules by the generator, to determine if they are inconformity with one or more requirements. In other embodiments, theanalyzer 22 b may operate, instead or in addition, in an “offline” mode(e.g., at design time), wherein it determines whether one or more userinterface rules that are, for example, being designed, tested orotherwise optimized, are in conformity with those requirements. In theoffline mode, the user interface rules being analyzed may notnecessarily be executed by the engine 22 to generate a user interface atthe time of analysis. Instead, the analyzer 22 b may simply retrieve oneor more of the user interface rules from the rules base 24 andintrospect their underlying data structure (e.g., scripts, code, logic,instructions, meta-data etc.) to determine conformity with therequirements. For sake of simplicity and without loss of generality, inthe discussion that follows a user interface rule that is being analyzedby the analyzer 22 b is referred to as a “rule being executed” or a“selected rule,” regardless of whether the analyzer 22 b is processingthat rule in online or offline mode.

It will be appreciated that in both online and offline modes, theanalyzer 22 b may work in conjunction with the rules engine 22 to any ofmanage, track and implement analysis by the analyzer. The operation ofthe rules engine and/or analyzer in these regards may be governed byworkflow(s) and other business process management (BPM) features (e.g.,user collaboration, work management etc.) that may be defined by some ofthe rules 25 in rules base 24. For example, as was previously mentioned,a plurality of rules in rules base 24 may define a project managementand/or issue tracking application that is executed by engine 22 atrun-time. The analyzer 22 b may communicate the results of the analysisin either offline or online mode to any of such applications that may,in turn, use the results data to generate and/or process one or moreuser interface optimization tasks associated with the results. Anadvantage of using such rules-based applications in conjunction with theanalyzer 22 b to manage and/or implement the results of the analysis maybe that all user interface optimization tasks may be performed in onesingle unified environment using a common underlying rules-based datastructure rather having to learn and/or convert data formats betweendifferent tools/technologies for various stages of the optimizationtasks. Furthermore, performing all user interface optimization tasks ina unified environment may obviate the need for complex integrationbetween digital data processing system 12 and disparatetools/applications using, for example, enterprise applicationintegration (EAI)/middleware or other integration technologies thatenable linkages between systems and/or applications. The communicationbetween analyzer 22 b and other applications is further discussed inconnection with FIG. 3.

The requirements are defined, in the illustrated embodiment, by some ofthe rules 25 contained in rules base 24, though, in other embodiments,they may be defined in one or more other collections, such as a database. Those requirement-defining rules set forth requirements foraspects of the user interface. In one embodiment, such aspects includelanguage syntax (including, for example, grammar, spelling, usage,punctuation, and/or style), accessibility to disabled users, amenabilityto and/or necessity of localization/globalization, security, and/orlayout. In other embodiments, the requirements may relate to only someof these aspects or for other additional aspects. In some otherembodiments, the requirements can be defined relative to other of therules 25 (and, particularly, for example, other user interface rules) inthe rules base 24, to data in the transactional database 26, syntaxinformation in the language database 28, and/or context informationmaintained in context registry 30.

Operation of the analyzer in these regards is illustrated in FIG. 3 anddiscussed below. The analyzer 22 b accepts as input the rule beingexecuted and/or the markup language stream generated from that rule. Inadditional embodiments, the analyzer 22 b accepts the corresponding Javaclass file instead or in addition to the rule and/or markup languagestream. However, for sake of simplicity and without loss of generalityin the discussion that follows, analysis of the rule and/or stream istreated as tantamount to analysis of the class file. Though the analyzer22 b of some embodiments operates only at the level of granularity of a“web page,” analyzing only those rules whose execution (when combinedwith that of referenced rules) will result in generation of an entireweb page, a preferred analyzer 22 b operates at larger and smallerlevels of granularity. Such an analyzer can examine rules whoseexecution will result in generation of sequences of web pages, as wellas those which will result in individual web pages and/or portionsthereof, all in accord with the teachings hereof.

In embodiments where the analyzer 22 b is configured to operate at thelevel of granularity of individual web pages/UIs, users of clientdevices (e.g., 14, 16 and 18) may be given an option to execute theanalyzer 22 b by pressing a button (e.g., entitled “Optimize My Form”)on the web page that is to be analyzed. This button may be presented tosome or all users of the client devices e.g., as determined by therelevant context (e.g., user role and/or security/privilege settings) attime of web page generation. By way of non-limiting example, the buttonmay be displayed on the web page for a user of the client device thatrequested that page if the relevant context at the time of web pagegeneration specifies user's role as a developer/administrator as opposedto an end user of the application that the web page is associated with.Such context-based generation of web pages and/or elements includedtherein is discussed in incorporated-by-reference U.S. patentapplication Ser. Nos. 11/396,415 and 12/035,682.

Upon execution or “launch” of the analyzer 22 b (e.g., by pressing abutton or otherwise), the user may then be shown a list of options (e.g.list of aspects) which enables the user to select all or some of theaspect of the web page/UI to be analyzed. The list of options may bedisplayed in a portion of the user interface/web page being analyzed orit may be displayed in a separate user interface (e.g., a pop-upwindow). Once the user makes the selections and the analysis iscomplete, the analyzer 22 b may likewise present the results of theanalysis in the user interface/web page being analyzed or in a separateuser interface. The possibilities with regard to the outcome of theanalysis are discussed in further detail below.

In other embodiments, the analyzer 22 b may be implemented as a softwarewizard or otherwise such that users of client devices (e.g., 14, 16 and18) are able to make a plurality of selections related to, for example,the desired level of granularity of the analysis (i.e., analyze one ormore user interfaces, rules and/or portions thereof), the aspects to beanalyzed, the priority (e.g., user interfaces associated with certainapplications analyzed before user interfaces for other applications)and/or timing (e.g., certain user interfaces and/or potions thereofanalyzed automatically upon triggering of an event or at pre-determinedintervals) of the analysis tasks.

By way of non-limiting example, the analyzer 22 b may be launched formultiple user interfaces and/or corresponding rules that pertain to oneor more applications wherein the user selects a certain combination ofaspects (e.g., security, accessibility, format etc.) to be analyzed foreach of the user interfaces. Alternatively, the user may simply selectan aspect of a single field or a section of a user interface to beanalyzed. Where certain selections are not made by a user, the analyzer22 b may perform the analysis based on default settings (e.g., analyzer22 b configured to analyze all aspects of all the user interfaces for anapplication once every three months unless a user selects otherwise).Still other ways of configuring and/or implementing the analyzer 22 bare possible. Regardless of the various embodiments of the analyzer 22 b, the discussion that follows provides a description of the operation ofanalyzer 22 b related to different aspects of the rule being executed.

In step 60, the analyzer 22 b analyzes language syntax aspects of therule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending uponthe level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup languagestream generated therefrom. In the illustrated embodiment, it performsthis task by comparing the display text specified in that rule and/ormarkup stream against the language database 28 to identify grammar,spelling, usage, punctuation, and/or style errors. Such comparison canbe formed using techniques normally employed in the word processing artsto identify syntax errors in word processing documents.

If the analyzer detects syntax non-conformance as a result of theanalysis in step 60, it performs one or more of the following steps:

-   -   (a) generating a notification of the non-conformance (i) for        storage in log or other files on the server 12 and/or (ii) for        output by the server 12, e.g., for logging and/or for display on        a client devices-preferably, one operated by a business        sponsor/architect, developer or administrator.    -   (b) identifying one or more modifications that would place the        rule being executed and/or the markup language stream generated        therefrom in conformance with the syntax defined in database 28,        and generating a notification of those modifications for storage        or output per steps (a)(i) and (a)(ii), above.    -   (c) modifying the rule being executed so that it and/or the        markup language stream generated therefrom is in conformance        with the syntax defined in database 28, and storing that rule to        the rules base 24 or other suitable location,    -   (d) modifying the markup language stream that was generated from        the rule being executed so that it is in conformance with the        syntax defined in database 28, and outputting that markup        language stream to (i) a client device 14, 16, 18 for        presentation by a web browser or other application 14 a, 16 a,        18 a, or (ii) a suitable store or other device.

Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of thelanguage database 28 for syntax analysis, in other embodiments, theanalyzer may instead or in addition access the rules base 24, thetransactional data base 26, and/or the context registry 30 for likecomparisons and/or for further information that may inform analysis ofconformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the languagesyntax requirements. Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference torequirement-defining rules among rules 25 in the rules base 24 mayinform the analyzer that the spelling requirements are to be relaxed forcertain display text fields of the interface, thereby allowing, forexample, the use of contractions, abbreviations and the like. And, byway of further example, reference to the context registry 30 may informthe analyzer of specific users' preferred languages, thus, affecting theanalyzer's choice of access to the language database 28 for theappropriate language.

In step 62, the analyzer 22 b analyzes the user interface rule beingexecuted (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level ofgranularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generatedtherefrom in regard to accessibility to disabled users. In theillustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing the variousdefining characteristics (e.g., type, content, size, and/or location) ofdisplay fields, input fields and other elements specified in the ruleand/or markup language stream to determine if they need to bereconfigured or modified to be more suitably rendered for disabledusers. In a preferred embodiment, requirements in this regard aredefined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24 and ensure that theresulting user interface can be generated with proper user-accessibilityfeatures, e.g., in accord with the teachings of aforementionedincorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/035,682,filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus forRules Processing.”

By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules25 can specify that tooltip texts must be provided with all controls(e.g., input elements and control elements), as well as for all non-textdisplay fields, in the user interface defined by a user interface rulebeing executed and/or corresponding markup stream. By way of furthernon-limiting example, such a requirement defining rule may prohibit theuse of multiple icons on a user interface such that the initial focus isplaced on the first input field when the user interface is firstdisplayed as opposed to an icon. Still further, the same or one or moreother requirement defining rules may require that all user interfaceelements utilize color schemes that will allow accessibility features(e.g., of the type specified in the aforementioned U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 12/035,682) to function properly.

If the analyzer detects accessibility non-conformance as result of theanalysis in step 62, it performs one or more of the following steps:

-   -   (a) generating a notification of the non-conformance (i) for        storage in log or other files on the server 12 and/or (ii) for        output by the server 12, e.g., for logging and/or for display on        a client devices-preferably, one operated by a business        sponsor/architect, developer or administrator.    -   (b) identifying one or more modifications that would place the        rule being executed and/or the markup language stream generated        therefrom in conformance with the accessibility requirements        defined in rules base 24, and the generating a notification of        those modifications for storage or output per steps (a)(i) and        (a)(ii), above.    -   (c) modifying the rule being executed so that it and/or the        markup language stream generated therefrom is in conformance        with accessibility requirements defined in rules base 24, and        storing that rule to the rules base 24 or other suitable        location,    -   (d) modifying the markup language stream that was generated from        the rule being executed so that it is in in conformance with        accessibility requirements defined in rules base 24, and        outputting that markup language stream to (i) a client device        14, 16, 18 for presentation by a web browser or other        application 14 a, 16 a, 18 a, or (ii) a suitable store or other        device.

Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of therequirement defining rules in the rules base 24 for accessibilityanalysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in additionaccess the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, thecontext registry 30, and/or other rules in the rules base 24 forinformation that may inform analysis of conformance of the userinterface rule and/or stream with the accessibility requirements. Thus,by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database26 and the context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22 b that certaingroups of disabled users consistently enter incorrect data in certainrequired input fields, thus, causing the analyzer to vary the conformityrequirements (e.g., embodied in requirement defining rules among rules25) for interfaces generated on behalf of those groups of users, e.g.,so that the misused fields are highlighted, placed on separate webpages, varied in format, and so forth.

By way of further non-limiting example, one or more other rules in therules base 24 may embody use cases for an application with which theuser interface rule being executed and/or stream is associated. Such usecases may suggest that the application will be used by U.S. governmentusers. Reference to these other use case rules in conjunction with rulesthat embody federal accessibility standards for user interface elementsassociated with U.S. government applications will allow the analyzer todetermine conformance of the rule being executed and/or stream with thefederal accessibility standards.

In step 64, the analyzer 22 b analyzes the user interface rule beingexecuted (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level ofgranularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generatedtherefrom in regard to its amenability to and/or necessity oflocalization (a/k/a globalization). In the illustrated embodiment, itperforms this task by analyzing the various defining characteristics(e.g., type, content, size, and/or location) of display fields, inputfields and other elements specified in the rule and/or markup languagestream to ensure that they can be suitably localized and/or to performthat localization, depending upon the demands of a particularapplication. In a preferred embodiment, requirements in this regard aredefined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24. These ensure thatthe resulting user interface can be generated for the appropriatelocales e.g., in accord with the teachings of aforementionedincorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/174,624,filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for ImplementingMultilingual Software Applications.”

If the analyzer detects localization non-conformance as result of theanalysis in step 64, it performs one or more of the following steps:

-   -   (a) generating a notification of the non-conformance (i) for        storage in log or other files on the server 12 and/or (ii) for        output by the server 12, e.g., for logging and/or for display on        a client devices-preferably, one operated by a business        sponsor/architect, developer or administrator.    -   (b) identifying one or more modifications that would place the        rule being executed and/or the markup language stream generated        therefrom in conformance with the localization requirements        defined in rules base 24, and the generating a notification of        those modifications for storage or output per steps (a)(i) and        (a)(ii), above.    -   (c) modifying the rule being executed so that it and/or the        markup language stream generated therefrom is in conformance        with localization requirements defined in rules base 24, and        storing that rule to the rules base 24 or other suitable        location,    -   (d) modifying the markup language stream that was generated from        the rule being executed so that it is in conformance with        localization requirements defined in rules base 24, and        outputting that markup language stream to (i) a client device        14, 16, 18 for presentation by a web browser or other        application 14 a, 16 a, 18 a, or (ii) a suitable store or other        device.

Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of therequirement defining rules in the rules base 24 for localizationanalysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in additionaccess the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, thecontext registry 30 and/or other rules in the rules base 24 forinformation that may inform analysis of conformance of the userinterface rule and/or stream with the localization requirements. Thus,by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database26 and/or the context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22 b thatusers in a geographic region of a country consistently enter monetaryvalues, use spellings, etc., that differ from the recognized norm ofthat country, thus, causing the analyzer to vary the localizationrequirements for interfaces generated on behalf of those users, e.g., toensure proper conversion and/or checking of values they enter and/or todisplay prompts that best match the expected form of input by thoseusers.

By way of further non-limiting example, one or more other rules in therules base 24 may embody use cases for an application with which theuser interface rule being executed and/or stream is associated. Such usecases may suggest that the application may be used in five differentcountries including Germany. Reference to these other use case rules inconjunction with a requirement defining rule that mandates highermaximum lengths for user interface elements to be localized in Germanwill allow the analyzer 22 b to accurately determine conformance of therule being executed and/or stream with the appropriate localizationrequirements (i.e., including Germany). On the contrary, analysisresults output by the analyzer 22 b without referencing the other usecase rules could be markedly different if the maximum lengths for userinterface elements are in compliance with the applicable requirementsfor all other locales.

In certain embodiments, a user interface rule being analyzed forlocalization may be designed such that all display elements includedtherein are translated from a base locale (e.g., American English or‘en_US’) to other locales based upon corresponding translated values ofthe display elements that are included in other referenced rules (e.g.,stored in rules base 24) that are configured for each such other locale(e.g., de_DE or German-speaking German locale). In such embodiments, arequirement-defining rule may specify that the display elements includedin the user interface rule being analyzed need to be localized for thede_DE locale and the analyzer may determine non-conformance by searchingfor the referenced rule (e.g., in the rules base 24) that includes thecorresponding translated values for the de_DE locale. If the search isunsuccessful, the analyzer may simply generate notification(s) oflocalization non-conformance according to steps (a) and/or (b) listedabove. If the search is successful, the analyzer may still detectnon-conformance in step 64, for example, due to an improperlink/reference between the user interface rule being analyzed and thereferenced rule for the de_DE locale. In this case, the analyzer maymodify the user interface rule to fix reference/link according to step(c) and/or modify the markup according to step (d) by executing thereferenced rule along with the user interface rule.

In step 66, the analyzer 22 b analyzes the user interface rule beingexecuted (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level ofgranularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generatedtherefrom in regard to security, e.g., whether one or more elements ofthe user interface require special treatment in connection with theirdisplay and/or entry via the client applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 a. Inthe illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing definingcharacteristics (e.g., the ID.'s, formats and/or content) of displayfields, input fields and other elements specified in the user interfaceto determine if they necessitate application of security requirementsdefined by one or more requirement defining rules among rules 25 in therules base 24.

By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule 25 canspecify that all fields in the user interface defined by a userinterface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup streamcontaining social security numbers, passwords, financial account numbersor other such confidential information must be partially or fullyobscured (a/k/a “obfuscated”) upon display by and/or entry via anapplication 14 a, 16 a, 18 a on a client device.

If the analyzer detects security non-conformance as result of theanalysis in step 66, it performs one or more of the following steps:

-   -   (a) generating a notification of the non-conformance (i) for        storage in log or other files on the server 12 and/or (ii) for        output by the server 12, e.g., for logging and/or for display on        a client devices-preferably, one operated by a business        architect/sponsor, developer or administrator.    -   (b) identifying one or more modifications that would place the        rule being executed and/or the markup language stream generated        therefrom in conformance with the security requirements defined        in rules base 24, and the generating a notification of those        modifications for storage or output per steps (a)(i) and        (a)(ii), above.    -   (c) modifying the rule being executed so that it and/or the        markup language stream generated therefrom is in conformance        with security requirements defined in rules base 24, and storing        that rule to the rules base 24 or other suitable location,    -   (d) modifying the markup language stream that was generated from        the rule being executed so that it is in in conformance with        security requirements defined in rules base 24, and outputting        that markup language stream to (i) a client device 14, 16, 18        for presentation by a web browser or other application 14 a, 16        a, 18 a, or (ii) a suitable store or other device.

Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of requirementdefining rules in the rules base 24 for security analysis, in otherembodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access thetransactional data base 26, the language database 28, the contextregistry 30 and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for information thatmay inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/orstream with the security requirements. Thus, by way of non-limitingexample, reference to the transactional database 26 may inform theanalyzer 22 b that certain groups of users commonly enter socialsecurity numbers as user i.d.'s when setting up accounts, thus, causingthe analyzer to vary the display format, prompting or validationrequirements for interfaces generated on behalf of those users, e.g.,warning them not to use such i.d.'s, blocking their acceptance as properuser names, or obfuscating them upon entry where the user i.d.'s ofother groups of users are not obfuscated.

In step 68, the analyzer 22 b analyzes the user interface rule beingexecuted (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level ofgranularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generatedtherefrom in regard to formatting and layout (collectively, “layout”).In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing thedefining characteristics (e.g., i.d.'s, formats, locations, etc.,) ofdisplay fields, input fields and other elements specified in the ruleand/or markup language stream to determine whether they meet formattingrequirements defined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24.

By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules25 can specify that all fields that appear on user interfaces generatedby one set of rules for presentation by applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 arun by an enterprise's employees that also appear on a user interfacegenerated (e.g., by another set of user interface rules) forpresentation by like applications run by an enterprise's CEO must appearat the top of any web pages generated for the employees (hence, ensuringthat what is important to the CEO is of priority to the employees).Similarly, a requirement defining rule may specify that any field thatis included (or not included) in a user interface presented/displayed tomanagers within a company should also be included (or not included) onuser interfaces that are used by the direct reports of those managerswithin that company.

By way of further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining ruleamong rules 25 can specify arrangement of field types in the userinterface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/orcorresponding markup stream, e.g., prohibiting ordering of field typesthat would cause the user to have to jump excessively between inputdevices (e.g., a drop-down control atop a text field atop anotherdrop-down control). Such a requirements-defining rule 25 can help avoidinterfaces that degrade performance by forcing the user to go from mouseto keyboard and back again, excessively.

By way of still further non-limiting example, a requirements-definingrule among rules 25 can specify color contrast of field in a userinterface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/orcorresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that colors of web pagebackgrounds, fields, images and so forth meet specified branding and/oraesthetic requirements.

By way of still further non-limiting example, a requirements-definingrule among rules 25 can specify whitespace in a user interface definedby a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markupstream, e.g., ensuring consistency across columns, sections, and otherregions of the user interface. Such a requirements-defining rule 25 canlikewise define a quantity of unused area on web pages in the userinterface, e.g., ensuring that such web pages are not, on the one hand,overloaded with text or images and, on the other hand, overly devoid ofsuch elements.

By way of yet still further non-limiting example, arequirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify alignment in auser interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/orcorresponding markup stream, e.g., again, ensuring consistency acrosscolumns, sections, and other regions of the user interface, as well asensuring proper visual hierarchy through indenting.

By way of still yet further non-limiting example, arequirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify labelingrequirements in a user interface defined by a user interface rule beingexecuted and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring thatbuttons, columns and other elements of the user interface bearconsistent and appropriate labels.

By way of yet still further non-limiting example, arequirements-defining rule among rules 25 can avoid redundancy in a userinterface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/orcorresponding markup stream, e.g., checking for columns, buttons andother fields with the same name.

By way of further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining ruleamong rules 25 can require tooltips on certain or all input and non-textdisplay elements in a user interface defined by a user interface rulebeing executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring easeof navigation.

By way of yet still further non-limiting example, arequirements-defining rule among rules 25 can require breadcrumbs, tabsand other navigational aids in a user interface defined by a userinterface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g.,ensuring that users of the interface know where they are in a sequenceof web pages or process.

By way of yet still further non-limiting example, arequirements-defining rule among rules 25 can require accord between theactual or likely resolution of user display (e.g., on device 14 a, 16 a,18 a) and width or length of columns and other elements in a userinterface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/orcorresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that there are not too manycolumns in a grid or list view, too many columns in a section, etc.,that would cause or necessitate horizontal and vertical scrolling.

If the analyzer detects layout non-conformance as result of the analysisin step 68, it performs one or more of the following steps:

-   -   (a) generating a notification of the non-conformance (i) for        storage in log or other files on the server 12 and/or (ii) for        output by the server 12, e.g., for logging and/or for display on        a client devices-preferably, one operated by a business        architect/sponsor, developer or administrator.    -   (b) identifying a one or more modifications that would place the        rule being executed and/or the markup language stream generated        therefrom in conformance with the layout requirements defined in        rules base 24, and the generating a notification of those        modifications for storage or output per steps (a)(i) and        (a)(ii), above.    -   (c) modifying the rule being executed so that it and/or the        markup language stream generated therefrom is in conformance        with layout requirements defined in rules base 24, and storing        that rule to the rules base 24 or other suitable location,    -   (d) modifying the markup language stream that was generated from        the rule being executed so that it is in in conformance with        layout requirements defined in rules base 24, and outputting        that markup language stream to (i) a client device 14, 16, 18        for presentation by a web browser or other application 14 a, 16        a, 18 a, or (ii) a suitable store or other device.

Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of therequirement defining rules in rules base 24 for layout analysis, inother embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access thetransactional data base 26, the language database 28, the contextregistry 30, and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for informationthat may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface ruleand/or stream with the layout requirements.

Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactionaldatabase 26 and context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22 b that agiven input field is used a high percentage of times by a certain groupof users, thus, causing the analyzer 22 b to update the rule(s) beingexecuted and/or stream to impose the layout requirements for that fieldto effect its higher placement on any web pages on which it appears forthose group of users. While such a positioning requirement for thatfield could potentially be imposed directly by a layoutrequirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at developmenttime, the field's frequent usage might not be apparent until productiontime, when actual users of applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 a begin enteringdata into that field.

Similarly, reference to the transactional database 26 may inform theanalyzer 22 b that there is a correlation between two fields (e.g., arequired and non-required field) on a user interface such that aparticular field (e.g., a non-required field) is populated 85% of thetime when another field (e.g., a required field) is populated. This maycause the analyzer 22 b to update the rule(s) being executed and/orstream generated therefrom to impose the layout requirements for thosetwo fields to be positioned next to each other on a user interface.While such a positioning requirement for those fields could potentiallybe imposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in therules base 24 at development time, the correlation between the twofields' usage might not be apparent until production time, when actualusers of applications 14 a, 16 a, 18 a begin entering data into thosefields.

By way of non-limiting example, reference to and/or introspection of oneor more other rules in a rules base 24 may inform the analyzer 22 b thata given input field (or display field) appears on a report that isdefined by those rules and is viewed daily by the CEO. This again maycause the analyzer 22 b to update the rule(s) being executed and/orstream to impose the layout requirements for that field to effect itshigher placement on any user web pages on which it appears. Again, whilesuch a positioning requirement for that field could potentially beimposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in therules base 24 at development time, the field's appearance on the CEO'sdaily report might not be evident to the designers of the rule(s) beingexecuted during their development.

Similarly, reference to and/or introspection of one or more otherworkflow and/or decisioning rules in rules base 24 may inform theanalyzer 22 b that the value for a given input field is used as part ofa decision-making criteria in a workflow defined by the other rules.This again may cause the analyzer 22 b to update the rule(s) beingexecuted and/or stream to impose the layout requirements for that fieldto effect its marking/editing as a required field on any user web pageson which it appears. Again, while such a formatting requirement for thatfield could potentially be imposed directly by a layoutrequirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at developmenttime, the use of the field's value in the workflow and/or decisionmaking might not be evident to the designers of the rule(s) beingexecuted during their development.

It will be appreciated that even though the discussion above focuses onthe analyzer's use of any of rules 25, rules base 24, transactional database 26, the language database 28 and the context registry 30 forinformation that may inform analysis for aspects in steps 60-68 of therule being executed and/or stream, in other embodiments, the analyzer 22b may instead or in addition access log files or other data (e.g.,stored on digital data processors on any of 12, 14, 16 and 18) relatedto the results of previous analyses performed by the analyzer 22 b . Byway of non-limiting example, if a particular field was previously deemedto be a high priority and/or a required field in a particular context,the analyzer may log and/or store that result in any of steps 68 a(i),a(ii) and (b). Thus, the analyzer 22 b can simply refer to thatpreviously stored/logged result and the context registry 30 for anysubsequent analyses of rule(s) being executed and/or stream that includethat field.

It will also be appreciated that the occurrence of any of thealternatives (a)-(d) after the analysis in any of steps 60-68, willdepend upon a variety of factors. By way of non-limiting example, step(d) may be performed without step (c) in situations where a user istesting and/or developing a user interface in the off-line modediscussed above. In this scenario, a user may only want to modify themarkup language stream and examine the result (e.g., in a web browser)before modifying the rule that is being analyzed. Step (d) can thus beperformed iteratively (e.g., sometimes in combination with steps (a)and/or (b)) without step (c) to allow a developer to make changes to themarkup stream, examine the result(s) of those changes, make furtherchanges to the markup, examine the new changes, etc. After theuser/developer has fined-tuned the changes through this iterativeprocess, the user/developer may then decide to make and store the rulechange(s), which reflect the fine-tuned markup, via step (c).

Other factors that may influence the occurrence of any of thealternatives (a)-(d) after the analysis in any of steps 60-68 includesecurity privileges/permissions related to viewing notifications, makingmodifications and/or access to other workflows/applications that are incommunication with the analyzer 22 b . For example, the securitypermissions/privileges of a user may only allow that user to see whetherthere are any notifications of non-conformance via step (a) and/oridentified modifications via step (b); but not to implement some or allof such identified modifications through steps (c) and/or (d).Alternatively, a user may have permission to make markup modificationspursuant to step (d) but not to authorize rule changes via step (c)—orvice versa.

In another embodiment, a user may have the appropriate securityprivileges/permissions to perform any of steps (c) and (d) but may stillbe unable to do so due to various reasons. For example, the rule and/ormarkup being analyzed may be (at least) temporarily not modifiable dueto it being reviewed, executed, modified or otherwise used by anotheruser at the time that the user is attempting to perform any ofmodification steps (c) and (d). In some such cases, a task list ofmodifications pursuant to the notifications in step (b) may be createdand placed in a queue for implementation when the rule becomes availablefor modification (or some time afterwards).

As previously mentioned, such task list generation and/or performance ofany of steps (a)-(d) may be performed by the analyzer 22 b inconjunction with another application(s) (e.g. issue tracking or projectmanagement application) that is in communication with the analyzer 22 b.By way of non-limiting example, such an application(s) may compriseworkflows/processes (e.g. defined by some of the rules 25) that wouldallow for routing, reviewing, authorizing, implementing and otherwisemanaging any of the modification tasks generated in the application as aresult of steps (c) and/or (d). Still other variations in the type offunctionality of such applications in conjunction with the analyzer 22 bare possible.

Described herein are methods and systems meeting the objects set forthabove, among others. It will be appreciated that the illustratedembodiments and those otherwise discussed herein are merely examples ofthe invention and that other embodiments, incorporating changes thereto,fall within the scope of the invention, of which we claim:

1.-66. (canceled)
 67. A digital data processor-based method for userinterface optimization, the method comprising executing on a digitaldata processing system steps of: determining whether an initial userinterface represented by any of an initial markup language page and aninitial markup language stream is a non-conforming user interface, wherea non-conforming user interface is a user interface that is not inconformity with one or more conformance requirements; responding to adetermination that the initial user interface is a non-conforming userinterface by. identifying modifications to the initial user interfacethat would make it a conforming user interface, where a conforming userinterface is a user interface that is conformance with the one or moreconformance requirements, wherein the modifications are identified basedon at least one of workflow and decisioning rules contained among aplurality of rules stored in a rules base, the modifications includingone or more of repositioning a field in the non-conforming userinterface, removing a field from the non-conforming interface, changinga field property of a field in the non-conforming interface, changing afield type of a field in the non-conforming interface, and making afield of the non-conforming interface any of required and not required;and performing any of: (i) generating a notification that specifies theidentified modifications that would make the initial user interface aconforming user interface, (ii) modifying any of the initial markuplanguage page and the initial markup language stream in accord with theidentified modifications to generate any of a modified markup languagepage and modified markup language stream that represents a conforminguser interface, and (iii) generating a conforming user interface inaccord with the identified modifications from at least one of theinitial markup language page and the initial markup language stream. 68.The method of claim 67, wherein the conformance requirements pertain toone or more of security; layout; accessibility of the user interface bydisabled users; amenability of the user interface to any of localizationand globalization; a need for any of localizing and globalizing the userinterface; and a language syntax of the user interface, the languagesyntax including any of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, andstyle.
 69. The method of claim 67, wherein the determining whether theinitial user interface is a non-conforming user interface includesdetermining whether tool tips provided with one or more fields of theinitial user interface are non-conforming tool tips.
 70. The method ofclaim 67, wherein the determining whether the initial user interface isa non-conforming user interface includes determining whether the initialuser interface is non-conforming in regard to obfuscating one or morefields of the user interface.
 71. The method of claim 67, wherein thedetermining whether the initial user interface is a non-conforming userinterface includes determining whether the initial user interface isnon-conforming in regard to any of priority of fields, color contrast,whitespace, alignment, field labels, element labels, redundancy, tooltips, progress indicators, and display resolution.
 72. The method ofclaim 67, wherein the determining whether the initial user interface isa non-conforming user interface includes determining whether the initialuser interface is non-conforming in regard to any of whitespace andredundant headers.
 73. The method of claim 67, wherein the determiningwhether the initial user interface is a non-conforming user interfaceincludes determining whether the initial user interface isnon-conforming in regard to any of visual hierarchy and indenting. 74.The method of claim 67, wherein the conforming user interface includes afield that is repositioned with respect to the initial user interface,and wherein a location of the repositioned field is based on a locationof another field in the initial user interface.
 75. The method of claim67, wherein the conforming user interface includes any of (i) a fieldadded to those in the initial user interface, and (ii) a field removedfrom those in the initial user interface, and wherein the field is anyof added and removed based on another field in the initial userinterface.
 76. The method of claim 67, wherein the initial userinterface includes one or more fields accepting user input fromdifferent input devices, and wherein the conforming user interfaceminimizes a number of fields accepting input from different inputdevices.
 77. A system for user interface optimization, the systemcomprising: a rule base configured to store a plurality of rules; and adigital data processor in communication with the rules base; wherein thesystem is configured for: determining whether an initial user interfacerepresented by any of an initial markup language page and an initialmarkup language stream is a non-conforming user interface, where anon-conforming user interface is a user interface that is not inconformity with one or more conformance requirements; responding to adetermination that the initial user interface is a non-conforming userinterface by: indentifying modifications to the initial user interfacethat would make it a conforming user interface, where a conforming userinterface is a user interface that is conformance with the one or moreconformance requirements, wherein the modifications are identified basedon at least one of workflow and decisioning rules contained among theplurality of rules, the modifications including one or more of removinga field in the non-conforming user interface, removing a field from thenon-conforming interface, changing a field property of a field in thenon-conforming interface, changing a field type of a field in thenon-conforming interface, and making a field of the non-conforminginterface any of required and not required; and performing any of: (i)generating a notification that specifies the identified modificationsthat would make the initial user interface a conforming user interface,(ii) modifying any of the initial markup language page and the initialmarkup language stream in accord with the identified modifications togenerate any of a modified markup language page and modified markuplanguage stream that represents a conforming user interface, and (iii)generating a conforming user Interface in accord with the identifiedmodifications from at least one of the initial markup language page andthe initial markup language stream.
 78. The system of claim 77, whereinthe conformance requirements pertain to one or more of security layout;accessibility of the user interface by disabled users; amenability ofthe user interface to any of localization and globalization; a need forany of localizing and globalizing the user interface; and a languagesyntax of the user interface, the language syntax including any ofgrammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and style.
 79. The system ofclaim 77, wherein the system configured for determining whether theinitial user interface is a non-conforming user interface includessystem being configured for determining whether tool tips provided, withone or more fields of the initial user interface are non-conforming tooltips.
 80. The system of claim 77, wherein the system configured fordetermining whether the initial user interface is a non-conforming userinterface includes system being configured for determining whether theinitial user interface is non-conforming in regard to obfuscating one ormore fields of the user interface.
 81. The system of claim 77, whereinthe system configured for determining whether the initial user interfaceis a non-conforming user interface includes the system being configuredfor determining whether the initial user interface is non-conforming inregard to any of priority of fields, color contrast, whitespace,alignment, field labels, element labels, redundancy, tool tips, progressindicators, and display resolution.
 82. The system of claim 77, whereinthe system configured for determining whether the initial user interfaceis a non-conforming user interface includes the system being configuredfor determining whether the initial user interface is non-conforming inregard to any of whitespace and redundant headers.
 83. The system ofclaim 77, wherein the system configured for determining whether theinitial user interface is a non-conforming user interface includes thesystem being configured for determining whether the initial userinterface is non-conforming in regard to any of visual hierarchy andindenting.
 84. The system of claim 77, wherein the conforming userinterlace includes a field dial that is repositioned with respect to theinitial user interface, and wherein a location of the repositioned fieldis based on a location of another field in the initial user interface.85. The system of claim 77, wherein the conforming user interface,includes any of (i) a field added to those in the initial userinterface, and (ii) a field removed from those in the initial userinterface, and wherein the field is any of added and removed based onanother field in the initial user interface.
 86. The system of claim 77,wherein the initial user interface includes on e or more fieldsaccepting user input from different input devices, and wherein theconforming user interface minimizes a number of fields accepting inputfrom different input devices.